Archive for February, 2012

The cement is still wet enough to scratch my initials in, but it’s curing around my vote for Newt, March 6th.

Best Candidate:

We need a thick-skinned, sharp-toothed junkyard dog to beat the Obama/Media-Pimp/Soros/KGB/Muslim-Brotherhood complex.

Romney is such a gone-over marketing package that I see him as more package than product. Yes, he seems conservative on some issues — maybe even most — but he is SO polished and marketing-driven that I don’t think he will have a hard enough edge in debates with Obama and surrogates, and in ambush interviews with the Obamedia to keep conservatives interested and motivated, and to make a bold contrast between himself and Obama.

Santorum is a little too Mister Rogers for me, and, like Romney, he doesn’t appear to be capable of confronting Obama aggressively, and establishing the stark contrast that will make softer 2008 Obama voters think, “I voted for ‘change,’ not for ‘destruction’, and not for turning this country into a phony-baloney, socialist utopia. And that doesn’t make me a racist, it makes me willing to admit a mistake, and CORRECT IT.”

There is too a strong vein of McCain-style, smiley-face milquetoast in him, and it can come out at the worst possible moment (think Arlen Specter), letting ObamaCo make him look flatter than stale beer.

Ron Paul may be capable of the junkyard dog thing, but how can anyone be comfortable with the appallingly-large component of wackoid, hate-spewing, racist loons who are stuck to him? Most of them have more in common with Louis Farrakhan than with me.

He can’t win the election, because his foaming-at-the-mouth acolytes will alienate everyone but themselves from him, and then they will turn on each other, leaving a battered few to show up at the polls… probably on Wednesday, after they run out of pot.

If a man is known by the company he keeps, Paul is a guy who is comfortable with a live grenade rolling around in the back of his pickup truck — probably Obama’s dream opponent.

Gingrich has shown repeatedly, in the 327 Republican debates, and in multiple ambush “interviews” that he can stand up under tremendous pressure and articulate conservative principles both rationally and persuasively, even in the face of the most intense, lying, hate-filed attacks Obama and his jackals can muster. He can punch, but most importantly, he can counter-punch, hard — and that is critical.

Newt’s so-called “baggage” is all out there, and none of it matters up against the Obama baggage (make that a Chinese mega-freighter full of shipping containers dripping toxic waste) already in the public record, AND the many, as-yet-undisclosed skeletons in Obama’s closet, many of which will spill out by Fall, despite the Obamedia’s best efforts. If Newt’s campaign goes after Obama as it should and could, the baggage will all belong to Barack.

Best President:

None of the Final Four will make an ideal, constitutionally-sound president. If that’s what you’re looking for, forget it. Now, back to reality:

Santorum and Romney are in a mushy tie, as far as being trustworthy in the Big Chair. Either of them seems capable of being persuaded to do outrageous things in “the best interest of the majority (read, “Romneycare”, and “Arlen Specter”, as above), or in some Marxist-theology-tainted religious appeal, even if those things are explicitly unconstitutional and wrong — as long as they have the right emotional hooks.

Ron Paul is a non-starter. What does his acceptance of the support of his bizarre fan base say about Paul’s judgment? Nothing that makes me want him in the White House.

Add to that, he is clearly, fatally, 180-degrees wrongabout Israel and foreign policy, and the threat of Islam. That he sticks with those insane, immoral positions is all the evidence I need that he has a deep character flaw, defective judgment, and/or a tenuous grip on reality.

Okay, Least-Bad President:

Any of them would require a continuous prod with a flaming, sharp stick, to move them toward constitutional government and away from New Deal tyranny. I feel about 1.5% better turning my back on Newt for as long as two minutes at a time. Mitt and Rick, not for a second. Either of them could be swayed by a good sales pitch, even if intrinsically wrong, if the emotional appeal were strong enough. Paul? I shudder to think of him loose in the Commander-in-Chief’s chair, spinning and squealing, without adult supervision.

My instinct is that Newt has a hard enough core to send any pack of lobbyist jackals dressed as a sales team packing, and feeling as if they had just had their bark peeled. I can’t say that about any of the others.

I’ve had it with the Lamestream Media (credit: Joseph Farah) and Republican big shots and their concern for these mythical voters, the Moderates, the Undecideds, and the Independents.

First of all, who the hell are these voters?

Moderates are liberals who are embarrassed to admit to their liberalism, or some of its more repugnant aspects, because they know that liberalism is out of the American mainstream, indefensible and stupid.

Undecideds – those who truly are undecided, even after the primaries and conventions – are people who are unable to distinguish up from down, good from evil (or are uncomfortable with offending evil by denouncing it publicly) and who probably should not be allowed out of their rooms without competent adult supervision, because they will be unable to determine which way to turn at the door. Why do we care what they think about the important stuff? They can’t decide which color socks to wear.

Independents – See also “Moderates,” above. These hapless individuals see themselves as above labels and party political games, and morally superior to people who use such labels. However, they are really just Moderates by another name.

The exception is the “Recovering Republicans.” They were appalled by the feckless and incompetent presidential campaigns of Bob Dole and John McCain. They are terminally annoyed with the Republican Congressional Leadership’s fondness for the intricacies of political process, and their allegiance to party unity over Constitutional principle. They are undecided which likely Republican candidate will be least likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

They cannot become Democrats without first having their brains removed, but can no longer support the Republican National Committee and its various surrogates, which are neither conservative nor welcoming of people who are.

The “experts” and the GOP Establishment have told us for decades that mentioning the Constitution, “social issues” (they say, “choice” — we say, “abortion”) and God will drive away these three classes of voters, and they cite surveys, routinely conducted by liberal news organizations and left-wing special interest groups (often indistinguishable) who say any attempt to articulate conservative principles will scare off these three groups like crows scattering at the sound of gunfire.

Do the experts and interest groups ever bother to find out why the members of these groups identify themselves as such? Do they even care?

Are they afraid that examining the views of these wafflers and wishy-washies in any detail would reveal them for the airheads, liberals and lefties they really are?

Of course they are. How do you think they can claim to know what these people think about the Constitution, abortion and God, except by inventing this mythical voting bloc out of whole cloth? Are they any more credible than mystics at a séance, claiming to speak for the dead?

No. The TV talking heads, the Republican Royalty and the Republican political consultants (real, and wanna-be) don’t know who Moderates, Undecideds and Independents really are, and they are no more able to predict how they will vote (or even IF they will vote) than I am able to predict winning Powerball numbers.

It’s time to ignore Moderates, Undecideds and Independents, and the people who claim to speak for them.